LexieCat

I agree, it is NOT the woman's "fault" for not being assertive, but if by speaking up we are better able to defend our integrity, well, that's something we can do for ourselves. I don't think encouraging assertiveness equals blaming someone who isn't that way.

JenT1968

I don't read it that way at all, I read it as an explanation of why women who are attacked do not react in the way that many people think they "should" and are then blamed for the attack, or have it dismissed, because if it was real they would have a) shouted, b) pushed the man violently away, c) run screaming and crying from where it happened etc.

it's an explanation of the no win situation, it is saying we shouldn't be surprised that women don't always react the way society thinks they should when attacked, because we, as a society, don't allow women as a whole to act protectively most of the time.

Having boundaries doesn't stop someone trampling all over them, violently, if they are determined to. This article isn't saying it would. A lack of enforcing boundaries is not an excuse for another to treat someone badly: babies are unable to enforce boundaries, abusing them is not fine, people with learning difficulties have a hard time with boundaries, abusing them is not fine, the very elderly ....... you get my point.

A person who pushes the boundaries described above, however poorly they are enforced, is abusive. We need to teach our boys and girls this.

JenT1968

there is a statement that I see here sometimes:
"we teach other people how to treat us"

I absolutely disagree with this: people who overstep stated boundaries do so because they have found this to be an approach that works in getting their own way and/or they they feel entitled to do so. Our boundaries, whatever they are don't work to change someone elses behaviour or sense of entitlement, they can only work to limit our exposure to behaviour we don't want to tolerate.

we don't teach people how to treat us, we act to remove ourselves from repetitions of the behaviour we don't like.

In ALice's example, she hasn't changed his feeling of entitlement or general behaviour towards her, standing up for her (very reasonable) boundary, has just shifted one bad behaviour to another, this may be more tolerable to her, or not.

being emotional in the work-place/at home: men always have been emotional in both arenas, but the "allowed" emotions for them tended to be those seen as strong and masculine: anger, irritation, competitiveness, envy, lust etc. Women showing these emotions (which we women are indeed subject to) have lost their "femininity" and are emotionally unstable somehow denying their true nature, false, coniving, and therefore unsafe to have in the workplace. If they show "feminine" emotions; those that are more passive and "weaker" (love, empathy, fear, sadness, kindness) in the workplace, they are emotionally unstable, and therefore unsafe to have in the workplace.

This is an extreme steryotype and one that I personally have seen rarely overtly, but it still exists covertly.

No-one wants to work with someone who is constantly crying, or afraid, but very few people want to work with someone who is constantly angry or competative either. Emotional detachment is useful, but all humans have emotions, we still have them in the work-place, and they are useful there: they fuel empathy, team bonding, understanding your clients and customers, passion for your job, and the outcomes of your efforts, all require emotional engagement